permission – Personal image vs photographer Copyright

I am not a lawyer anywhere and this advice is based on my general understanding of the law in countries that have a system similar to that of English law.

The question I would like to ask is Why does that matter?.

Unless you are sued for damages (and you do not say that this is the case), it should not be a problem for you to have tried to block the images.

Normally, without explicit permission (verbal and attested or an email message or a phone message that you have written or signed and dated correctly on paper), you have no automatic right to the images to publish.

However, you are the subject of the images and, in general, you would be entitled to own and display the non-profit images. However, and I suspect that it is important that you understand this, if you are publishing the images in a way that could damage or defame the reputation of the other person, then we recommend that you do so. do not To do that. You can incur considerable legal costs just to defend that activity and you would need a very strong reason to do so.

Also keep in mind that posting photos with the intention of damaging someone's reputation may compromise your ability to sue them later if they caused damage to you and the photos prove it. Usually, the court does not like tit-for-tat behavior.

So, as a general rule, do not post photos to which you are not entitled. And even if you have a clear, correct idea that doing so with the intention of damaging someone's reputation is placing you in a difficult legal position.

Reading between the lines, my advice to you would be "let it go" and keep a copy of the images in private in case you need them later for legal reasons.